Earthling
David Henson
Ignorant sarcasm doesnt help, can you try again without the condensation?
I wasn't being sarcastic and it wasn't ignorant.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ignorant sarcasm doesnt help, can you try again without the condensation?
I wasn't being sarcastic and it wasn't ignorant.
A unicorn is a horse, or it could be an okapi which is related to the giraffe.Some atheists mock the bible because it mentions "unicorns."
But the silly ones are the mockers - 'unicorn' meant 'horned
animal.' Maybe "back then" when the bible was written in the
ancient Akkadian language these horned animals could have
had different names again. It's all very complicated - but this
complexity is denied.
It does make a tremendous difference because it shows a most curious issue, that if this book is so important and something we should all be following as it contains truth, why is it then that an accurately translated Bible is rather different from what we know as the English Bible? Either the Bible is blatantly wrong or the translation is bad, and with either one it begs to be asked why didn't god intervene to set things straight?
It also matters because it goes a very long way in demonstrating how Christians have bastardized Judaism and twisted the core texts into something that doesn't fit with the original religion or beliefs.
And it matters because you get to beat both Christians and Atheists alike over the head with their very poor quality work in research, criticisms, knowledge of, and desperate grasps to attack or defend the Bible (such as the recent thread about unicorns, where neither party wanted to acknowledge the fact the word unicorn should not appear in the English Bible and it was never intended to mean a rhinoceros).
It wasnt? Wow, that surprises me considering you were making demandsp
But anyway, you admit that you were being condescending
Isn't it strange that people can argue over some obscure
text in the bible - and completely ignore what the bible
actual says about our human condition.
Not really.
Not demands, suggestions.
Is that a question? If so the answer is no.
And how do these links help your case that the English word "fowl" used to be used for bats or insects? Are you daft? Being serious here - what could you possibly be thinking? I scoured the information on the two links you cited, and the only thing that even comes close to supporting you (and it is quite a stretch) is this:
perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer"
David, you're my idol.Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds, and this is not the case. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.
The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.
The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
Fowl do not swarm in the waters.
The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).
The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.
It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.
David, you're my idol.
No. Not from what I have seen.Ignorant sarcasm doesnt help, can you try again without the condensation?
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds, and this is not the case. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.
The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.
The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3 / Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
Fowl do not swarm in the waters.
The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31 / Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).
The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.
It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.
Bats are mammals, not birds, so they do not lay eggs.
foul (`oph; peteinon):
The word is now generally restricted to the larger, especially the edible birds, but formerly it denoted all flying creatures; in Leviticus 11:20 the King James Version we have even, "all fowls that creep, going upon all four," Leviticus 11:21, "every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four." (Source)
The Etymology Dictionary tells us the origin of this word is “Old Norse fugal, German vogel, Gothic fugls, probably by dissimilation from *flug-la, literally “flyer”, from the same root as Old English fleogan, modern “to fly”.
fowl (n.)
Old English fugel "bird, feathered vertebrate," from Proto-Germanic *fuglaz, the general Germanic word for "bird" (source also of Old Saxon fugal, Old Frisian fugel, Old Norse fugl, Middle Dutch voghel, Dutch vogel, German vogel, Gothic fugls "a fowl, a bird"), perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer," from PIE *pleuk-, from root *pleu- "to flow."
I know you feel backed into a corner, but this isn't getting you out. We use the words we do because they convey the meanings we all agree on.The Etymology Dictionary tells us the origin of this word is “Old Norse fugal, German vogel, Gothic fugls, probably by dissimilation from *flug-la, literally “flyer”, from the same root as Old English fleogan, modern “to fly”.
Just as a FYI, some mammals (five species) do indeed lay eggs: the platypus and the echidnas (spiny anteaters).Bats are mammals, not birds, so they do not lay eggs.
If it wasn't written for us, if it doesn't apply to us the same way, why not discard the other thing? Or how do you decide to go about a "modern" understanding of ancient myths of stories involving acts that we know are impossible and are not supported by the evidence we have. It sounds very similar to the claim that not all of the Bible is literal, which begs the question of what guidelines and standards do we apply to know what is story and what is literal. If the laws that govern the growing of crops don't apply to us (and if IRC it's a law that only applies to Jews in Israel under specific conditions), then why should we assume the alleged crucifixion and resurrection and salvation applies?Why? The Bible wasn't written to us. It was written to the people in the time that it was written, who would have understood it completely. It's just an example for our consideration. That isn't to lessen it's importance, but it doesn't apply to us in the same way it did them. We have all we need.
Of course! The arrogance of Christians! You're commanded to judge not, yet here there are so many of them judging the Jews and insisting they got their own religion wrong.We've been there before. Judaism is a Pharisaic bastardization of the Jewish writings, given the nature of religiosity what else would you expect?
If they preserved it, as you claim, then why was the character Ha-Satan, a powerful, obedient, and high loyal angel of god, reinvented into the rebellious Devil? Why do Christians claim a Messiah, as no one has fulfilled all Messianic prophecy (the continued existence of war and not establishing Israel as a global super power are just two things Jesus failed to do).The Pharisees ****ed it (Judaism) up and the Christians preserved it then they ****ed it up as well.
It's no longer a current thread.Where is that thread? I just posted this on the subject. (Link)
No. The original word (re'em) very likely refers to the now extinct aurochs bulls, which had two horns. And we have evidence, through the writings of Magellan, that when they wrote unicorn in English it was interpreted to mean what we today think of as a unicorn, as when Magellan found this one horned creature (rhinoceros) he wrote, in a disappointed tone, that it does not at all match the description of the creature of myth.Some atheists mock the bible because it mentions "unicorns."
But the silly ones are the mockers - 'unicorn' meant 'horned
animal.' Maybe "back then" when the bible was written in the
ancient Akkadian language these horned animals could have
had different names again. It's all very complicated - but this
complexity is denied.